Aspect Ratio 4×3 16×9 4:3 16:9 Letterbox Pillarbox Pan Scan
Tһіѕ іѕ a small clip frοm www.BestHomeTheaterGuide.com A series οf full length Hi-Resolution Videos аrе establish іח a Mini-Course offered called “7 Secrets οf Home Theater”. Tһе course іѕ Free. Tһе aspect ratio οr basic shape οf TVs һаνе changed іח recent years wіtһ tһе rise οf high classification wide screen TVs. 4×3 һаѕ bееח taken over bу 16×9 аחԁ tһіѕ small video сƖаrіfіеѕ tһе ramifications.
Related items for sale - hover mouse for more information
 |  |  |  |  |  |
Recommended Reading
- Best Theatre Review
- TOP 10 Best Home Theater Projectors To Buy in 2011
- HOME THEATER SCARLET O MELHOR DO MUNDO – Hi Fi Show 2008 BRAZIL / BRASIL
- TOP 10 Best Center Channel Speakers – Home Theater Center Channel Speakers
- Home Automation, Smart Home Setup, Theater Rooms – Custom Audio Visual Setup
- Home Theater
- Dump Your Cable Box: Build A HTPC! – Tekzilla Clips
- Home Theater System with 1000W Audio.avi
- 5 Best Refurbished Home Theater Systems
- Epson Home Cinema 3010e & 5010e 3D Home Theater Projector (Similar to a 8350 but 3D & PT-AE7000U)
- Home Audio & Theater
- Best Theatre Review
Then you get a widescreen the “same inches” or a bit more as the full screen and you get a less vital picture for older movies, no? Can’t win either way. lol.
What is meant by 0.672916667 aspect ratio? I see this listed on some large plasma TVs, Panasonic for starters.
What is meant by 0.672916667 aspect ratio? Some larger plasma TVs has this listed as a aspect ratio.
t is meant by 0.672916667 aspect ratio? Some larger plasma TVs has this listed as a aspect ratio.
/watch?v=04i3DcH42mw what aspect ratio is that?
Now why did I get a 4:3 HD LCD tv in 2005?!
Letterboxed is awsome hell with full screen Those two black bars dont bother me at all Im pretty much fine with them.
my god to reckon we went decades watching movies at home pan and scanned. not until what 2005 did they come out with 16:9 tvs?? every show i see now in its first format is like watching it for the first time.
Thumbs up if you were like me and you despised widscreen movies with the annoying black bars when you used to own a 4:3 tv, but over time you got used them and now you can’t stand full form moves
..
lol they reckon i use 4×3 i have 16 x 9…… home theater… covers the WHOLE wall
@flares Then they should learn to configure their TV correctly.
@Knightmessenger I just don’t choose. I’ve spoken to people about this before and I’ve never establish one person who doesn’t care if people are stretched. People want to watch a film or tv programme with the people the right size.
@flares Well, like I said so many people with widescreen tv’s set 4:3 video to stretch instead of pillarbox, I would reckon the mean person wouldn’t mind seeing everyone squashed either.
Also, it would preserve more resolution (this is how video is made anamorphic).
I really reckon the full form version of a show should be available if it was shot open matte. These days with so many super 35 movies, it’s hard to tell what the first shot aspect ratio is anyways.
@Knightmessenger You must be joking. I’d rather watch a film pan and scanned than watch a film where everyone looks squashed. That would just look crap. When a film is P&S most of the material thats cut off doesn’t effect the film or the storyline anyhow. Only purists would reckon it does. It would be a lot simpler if all film directors would just make films in 4:3 like they were before 1953. That way there wouldn’t be a need to P&S. Nobody would miss anything and the film would be just as excellent.
Nearly a perfect demonstration but… Many people complain about the black bars at the top and bottom on their new 16:9 TV. It would have been nice if you had mentioned that movies are frequently in 2.35:1 or greater to clarify why even 16:9 TV’s have black bars. People always reckon they are losing something with black bars, I could have referred a lot of people here had you clarified black bars on 16:9 TV’s. Personally I have a CIH projection system.
@Knightmessenger 4:3 isn’t technically square, a square aspect ratio would be 1:1, both length and width are equal.
I should send by e-mail tis video to all my family members who complain about movies with “the black bars”. I can never convince them that wide screen is surpass.
Stretching 4:3 images to fit 16:9 looks dreadful in my opinion.
@realisticHomeboy Trust me, I despise widescreen tv’s that aren’t pillarboxed as much as anyone.
What I meant was: Since so many people don’t even care about distorting the picture on their television, why didn’t studios conveying their widescreen movies in a squeezed format so they could fill a 4:3 form without chopping off the sides? Sure a letterbox is surpass but isn’t a distortion less terrible than pan & scan?
@Knightmessenger Since stretching it is retarded. Why on earth would you want to watch a video distorted? Unfortunately many people are not even able to see the difference.
I detest pan and scan, I’ll place up with the bars.
@Knightmessenger 4:3 wouldnt strech it would crunch… but yea i choose
I reckon the 4:3 tv looks like a widescreen tv, it should be more of a square.
Why have movies in the past been panned & scanned to fit 4:3 instead of having the entire image stretched?
I mean, sure it distorts the image but judging by how many widescreen tv’s are set to stretch a 4:3 video instead of pillarboxing it, many probably would probably like widescreen stretched to fill 4:3.
Me too, I mean even some ancient game consoles like PS2 (some games had 16:9), PS1 and others (unlike PS3, 360 & wii had 16:9 support) had only 4:3. I mean when playing on the new 16:9 HD TV.
fantastic !